IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] RFC6147 and RFC7208 interoperability issues

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 07 February 2022 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB213A117A for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:05:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=Ps1WarRr; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=mufEWxMi
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nSrgztwO08sT for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:04:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1440A3A119A for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 57546 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2022 02:04:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=e0c6.62007e47.k2202; bh=qjW2Qlm+c2CnJKsH5K9g8uUUQYCl7JHNEMj9+CWcKuU=; b=Ps1WarRr3ZX9OFNck9uw7ND3k554pVIYHDXfKHjchVHHf6haC3SjjaH69eWXzueDARXfxl7ewNn7l/rBWa9Qzx6hqS/WIXDmYuhSpBHMSkvnz3N/xASt5sQuzqpsvYUPH4iePl0kLICm3A0IWFda2/9vtuVo5quzX8gPOvYqnsWBuPvU7fc4W58HVh4fxwhq8nYefLHe+rpU6slTm+V2redq8W2NvtsTs6A6Uo9XysBmisZxWv2t6M6cRhK2HqI41fSgIHj4snFL4XHGCH2YCDWvddRIKj1uFw0W9WLYQ8m9TWF6RekPluYbsSdfSC/ltfNTyYQX7xHwMaGd4xKPkw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=e0c6.62007e47.k2202; bh=qjW2Qlm+c2CnJKsH5K9g8uUUQYCl7JHNEMj9+CWcKuU=; b=mufEWxMio40NL6XodqV6Lp6C0z8SRhxUBgfG6ukHcoMzfGKnUGeipx4PNVkbgpO+21MNrsk453MxWgzUPnxIAhdTNyKQjcdi2AiCc8tBRJiVStuc/V8ZqfXBv10d2GUmGJRgsexexocImR+R0Y1YTxGi+Gn+MHa7v05IURroOcSp1mdaNAWW7h5xMTMpNXtYXELcpdKTMoRSpdfpB6YkI1jqQAnwcmExef37MIeL22bV8krWOcDWkr1wZSxcrXz5s31qgJPMUoaMqj2D7tMZTvTz+XvHPnP1MspotVS5H9nrhfsaKDcqQvi2TzerMUyIhdEPp2qfPOuue4IhxoqqnQ==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 07 Feb 2022 02:04:54 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1DE0C366A4FD; Sun, 6 Feb 2022 21:04:53 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 21:04:53 -0500
Message-Id: <20220207020454.1DE0C366A4FD@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Cc: klaus.frank@posteo.de
In-Reply-To: <9843fdc5-4443-e327-751b-330453ad7bf2@posteo.de>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/2Mv85Ejht8X9fCbZZ92cnciL6Jg>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] RFC6147 and RFC7208 interoperability issues
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 02:05:08 -0000

It appears that Klaus Frank  <klaus.frank@posteo.de> said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>Either way one of both RFCs needs an addendum to address this.

Unless you can find other people attempting to do SPF validation from
behind DNS64, it seems like a very low priority.

SPF has been in wide use since RFC 4408 was published fifteen years ago,
and I don't ever recall anyone else raising this issue before.

If you want to try writing the patches for whatever SPF library you use,
I expect the maintainers would be happy to look at them, but since they
don't use DNS64 or NAT64 it'd be hard for them to test or validate them.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email